Monday, February 29, 2016

MOTTODAILY NOTESa) Improving the context of LENRI want to discuss today with you about HOW to create a better context, a more favorable environment for LENR.We are forced to accept that the present context/environment of LENR is unfavorable- conceptual chaos. overwhelming complexity and diversity real and historically created outer and inner conflicts, humiliating uncertainty, search for the unique and global solution, myth of the "key"Paradoxically this is now combined with or even grafted on the reality of an unique solution- so much, too much depends now on the Report of the 1MW plant's year long test- the field has no other cards of high value to play out.What is the best LENR classic has today? Perhaps the three advanced PdD groups-ENEA, SKINR/Missouri U, CEES/Texas U. about which we do not know much- but even in my boldest dreams I do not hope they will discover something fundamentalabout how LENR works or that they will obtain 1000% reproducibility at tens of watts level excess heat.Progress is difficult in a context of an immiscible blend of fragment's of incompatible truths. Technology first can create an healthier context than scientism-at-any-price.We must create a competitional context for the Rossi technologyb) An essay by Edmund StormsEd was inspired by this paper given in Ego OutBeyond Experiment: Why the scientific method may be old hathttp://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/He wrote:(The above paper) is interesting, although it does not apply directly to LENR. It nevertheless, reveals a basic flaw in how physics evaluates the descriptions of reality, i.e. theory. In conventional science, a theory is evaluated by determining whether it can be falsified. I suggest this is the wrong criteria because most ideas can not be falsified. For example, can the claim for the Einstein concept of relativity be falsified? The answer is no. The idea is accepted because it allows real events to be related to other real events. The idea allows progress based on predictions that are found to be true. Nothing is falsified. The concept is accepted because it is useful, not because it is real or complete. Nothing more is needed. In fact, some aspects of the concept clearly are wrong because they conflict with what can be observed.

The concept we call LENR and the resulting explanations can not be falsified. Such a criteria is pointless. The important criteria is whether the ideas and concepts are useful in understanding Nature and improving life.

In the case of LENR, the phenomenon is clearly real, the energy has the potential to improve life, and the theories help in advancing the understanding and application. So, why is the claim rejected? Why is agreement about the most basic aspects of the phenomenon not obtained, even in the field itself? What criteria can we agree is important and can we agree on the consequence of its application?

I expect a conventional scientist who dares to step into the swamp that is LENR comes away with the same impression. The field is dominated by people who are ignorant of what is known about LENR, are not trained in general science, and cannot agree about anything. The rational discussions are drowned out and the sources of factual information are not acknowledged in the discussions. They go away with a rational opinion that this field is not science. And now Rossi reinforces this opinion.

I predict that any response to this description will demonstrate once again this lack of agreement. This is not to say that agreement is required or expected about everything. Agreement is only required about basic concepts on which a logical structure can be built. That agreement is not present in this field. If you disagree, you prove my point.

My answers and questions to Ed's essayI am very grateful to Ed for this sincere and condensed writing, it helps me to understand the approach of the essential LENR problem. For now it is sadly obvious that nothing scientific- falsifying, the brightest theory ever, the most convincing lab experiment repeatable at will- nothing, except an commercial product and technologycan redo LENR the lost prestige and place in mainstream science.Ed states:LENR, the phenomenon is clearly real, the energy has the potential to improve life, and the theories help in advancing the understanding and application.I agree that the phenomenon is real- however the rest of the phrase has to be demonstrated; is it surely true for the first discovered form of CF/LENR? Can the 007 histogram extended- and how much? It is a great difference between to exist and to live, to be able to grow.He also asks with discontent:Why is agreement about the most basic aspects of the phenomenon not obtained, even in the field itself? I can answer here: a deeply wicked problem is difficult per se, however its degree of difficulty is enhanced by the vision it creates in the minds of the solver-in-spe- false ireal and misleading. I think Ed undervalues the absolute difficulty of the LENR problem due to complexity, diversity, strangeness, novelty, dynamicity, multiplicity,extent, changes and so on. He thinks we can have a sketch of a solution based on the great but also narrow and disappointing PdD experience. There must be a simple. logical explanation, solution way. This can be true- or not. If the problem is really wicked, if we really know few things of a lot, then . Ed's nano-crack-Hydroton has few traits of a conqueror, game changer theory. Synergy in active sites is a basic principle with applications much beyond LENR.This is true in part- but why?The field is dominated by people who are ignorant of what is known about LENR, are not trained in general science, and cannot agree about anything.I doubt that the field is dominated by some group or individuals today- it is a disturbing cognitive anarchy there; I am trying to obtain agreement for some working principles first- not in a successful way.But, dear Ed suppose rationality wins and from tomorrow knowledgeable people replace the ignorants and a general agreement is established around what you wish.Can you predict, describe what will happen then?Thank you!DAILY NEWS1) Rossi: E-Cat X Can Produce Electricity and No Heathttp://www.e-catworld.com/2016/02/28/rossi-e-cat-x-can-produce-electricity-and-no-heat/2) The E-Cat: Unlimited LENR Power For The Future [Kindle Edition]
By Hank Mills http://www.prairietr.com/the-e-cat-unlimited-lenr-power-for-the-future-jutnjpo.pdf3) In Russian: What is inside Andrea Rossi's black box?http://bolshoyforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=473483.msg6333268#msg63332684) The expected Les Echos paper cold fusion puts physics on fireLa « fusion froide » enflamme la physique

17) This was published a few weeks ago but I have received it only now from a friend

DON'T MENTION COLD FUSION

Far, far away from the galaxy of mainstream
nuclear fusion, a small but dedicated band of
rebels is still devoted to the heresy of cold
fusion. The idea that nuclear fusion reactions
actually don't need huge temperatures or big
kit to happen has no agreed theory to back it
up, and has had a bad rep since ultimately
unreproducible claims were made back in the
198Os. But rebranded as "low energy nuclear
reactions" (LENR), it lives on.
Perhaps the loudest of the mavericks is
ltalian enqineerAndrea Rossi. who savs he
-
has been operating his "E-Caf'cold fusion
reactors, with a fuel of nickel powder and
hydrogen, since 2011, Now in partnership
with US company lndustrial Heat, Rossi
claims to be operating a 1-megawatt reactor
producing heat for a secret customer in the
US for a one-year trial. Russian researcher
Alexander Parkhomov and others have, they
say, reverse-en gineered the nickel-hydrogen
reaction in the E-Cat and generated heatfrom
an unknown reaction, morethan could be
produced by any chemical process,
Rossi hasjust been granted a US patent
for the E-Cat technology, and theJapanese
government has restarted funding for LENR
research. apparently on the basis of work by
Toyota and Mitsubishi. Few researchers give
the results much credence, but they have
attracted the attention of serious industrial
players outside Japan, too. Airbus is one of the
few willing to make a public show of interest,
hosting a conference on low energy nuclear
reactions in Toulouse, France, last October.

New Scientist l 30January 2016LENR IN CONTEXT-2Engineering: more than math and science

Sunday, February 28, 2016

MOTTODAILY NOTESYes, a technologists thinks in functions created by technologies- both desired positive and secondary, undesired- negative functions..I hope the 350 days report will allow us to understand better the functionality of the generators.In the very spirit of first-negative thinking- see my FQXI essay the most urgent task in technological development is the ruling out of the negative functions first.A wonderful example is the Bazhutov paper - see below. The two deadly functions of the F&P electrolysis cell- coolness and blocking of active sites by alien gases are eliminated by plasma electrolysis.DAILY NEWS1) Announced by Rossi- published now in his Journal of Nuclear PhysicsPlasma Electrolysis as Foundation for
Russian E-Cat Heat Generator http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Plasma%20electrolysis%20as%20foundation%20for%20russian%20E-Cat%20heat%20generator.pdfYu.N. Bazhutov-1
, A.I. Gerasimova-2
, V.P. Koretskiy-3 1 Pushkov Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation Institute
(IZMIRAN), RAS, Troitsk, Moscow, Russia, erzion@mail.ru; 2 Russian State Agrarian Correspondence University (RGAZU), Balashikha, Moscow region,
Russia, geras-albina2009@yandex.ru; 3Retired, Moscow, Russia, tarhanval@gmail.com After Andrea Rossi's Heat Generator (E-cat) presentation with demonstrations of excess heat up
to 600 % [1, 2] we have repeated such experiments with similar cell in Russia. As a result by us it has
been received the considerable exit of neutrons (~500000) in serial and x-ray radiation [3, 4, 5, 6]. We
presented them at the Russian annual Conferences on Cold Nuclear Transmutation [3, 4] and at the
International Conference in Korea [6]. However we didn't find excess heat on these installations.
Therefore we decided to return to a previous study of plasma electrolysis on the Fakel-1 installations
[7] and the Fakel-2 [8,9], where we already had indications on existence of nuclear radiation and
excess heat in this cell mode. On the modernized installation Fakel-3 with plasma electrolysis the
convincing evidence of nuclear processes was obtained. It was provided by Erzion catalysis [10] with
the large excess heat. The received results have provided the positive decision on our International
patent [11]. Here we present the investigation results of plasma electrolysis with anode gas discharge
in usual water. In our experiments there have been used different nuclear & calorimeter diagnostic
methods. Numerous demonstrations of their nuclear nature have been obtained in full accordance with
Cold Nuclear Transmutation Erzion Catalysis model predictions [12-17]. In much series there were
regularly demonstrated large excess heat generations (< 700%). This can provide creating of ourself
Russian E-Cat (Erzion Catalyzer) Heat Generator & new perspective nuclear energetics. See also for discussions:https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2819-Yu-Bazhutov-al-Plasma-Electrolysis-as-Foundation-for-Russian-E-Cat-Heat-Generato/ 2) At the LENR Forum- a new idea:Possible Role of the Gailitis Resonance in Low Energy Nuclear
Fusion Experiments http://www.journalofscience.org/index.php/GJSFR/article/viewFile/1463/1324By Chi-Yu Hu California State University Long Beach, United States AbstractThe physical mechanism for the formation of the Gailitis resonances has been
established in a recent precision calculation. According to the condition described in the low
energy nuclear fusion experiments, the likelihood of Gailitis resonance induced low energy
nuclear fusion exists. In this note, the properties of Gailitis resonance, the compound nuclear
resonances, the conservation laws of energy, parity and the nuclear angular momentum will be
used to support the possibility of Gailitis resonance induced low energy nuclear fusion.
Keywords: resonances, low energy nuclear fusion. Gregory Goble Energy Environment Think Tanks and LENR Energyhttp://gbgoble.kinja.com/energy-environment-think-tanks-and-lenr-energy-1760975602Andrea Rossi about company strategy:February 27, 2016 at 7:18 PM

Byron Mc Donald:I comfirm that, obviously, Industrial Heat is the exclusive Licensee of Leonardo Corporation also in all the Americas. What I answered to Frank Acland is that Leonardo Corporation is not intentioned, so far, to give a global license to a single entity. Global means in the whole world.Warm RegardsA.R.

Audrey:We are making a tremendous job and it will be so difficult to compete against us, that it will be less expensive and dangerous to find an agreement with us. We will be open to agreements as well as hard to be pushed away. We are ready. F9.Warm Regards,A.R.

5) On ECW this can be commented here:Rossi: “We Will Be Open to Agreements”

Abstract

Although we tend to speak of hypotheses, theories, and laws as though they were clearly differentiated, this is not the case; the distinctions are not clear and are primarily a matter of belief regarding how well relationships that have been conjectured are supported by evidence. But scientific theories and laws are far more than just matters of faith; they are also the product of a methodology that has developed via continual confrontation with reality. It is not an exaggeration to state that scientific theories and laws are the most reliable forms of generalization produced by rational human activity. Faith and rationality can co-exist in science in a most vital symbiosis!

... This measure- ment of the emissions of energetic (MeV) particles, in a region of low backgroundinterference plus their enhancement by Heº doping provides very strong support for the existenceof LENR processes in the crystalline lattice of deuterated metals. ...

... These dislocation cores could be considered as active centers of LENR triggering due to (i) shortDD separation distance (~ Bohr radius);(ii) high-local D-loading in the Pd and the correspondingeffective lattice compression;(iii) a large optic phonon energy re- Sulting in a most ...

Friday, February 26, 2016

MOTTOTherefore, the term "MISCOVERY" is actually a great compliment for the Fleischmann-Pons Cell.And, therefore, the critical trick- miracle spice in the recipe of NiH LENR will seem, in retrospective, as the most natural choice-solution.DAILY NOTESNot all discoveries are born equal; some are born prematurely, handicapped, underdeveloped, weaklings unable to ever grow up.The vision of LENR's history by Ed Storms.Two days ago, Edmund Storms has published a nice miniature- his first reaction tothe MFMP Announcement. Here it is:

" The LENR field is very
strange indeed. Think about what has happened. A new and unique source of
clean, cheap, and universal energy is discovered using PdD. This claim is
immediately rejected in spite of the desperate need for such energy.
Twenty-seven years of study in laboratories located in at least 12 countries
support the original claims, yet rejection continues.

Then another
discovery is made claiming to make energy using NiH. This claim is better
accepted than the claim based on PdD because the generated power is greater
even though the information provided by the discoverer is poor and not
consistent with what is observed . Although the process is new and behaves like
PdD, the power is considered to result from an entirely different mechanism.
In other words, two different "impossible" process are now
claimed to produce energy.

Not only are all the
claims rejected by conventional science, but agreement about the mechanism
cannot be achieve evenwithin the field itself.
(plus a few words about politics (US) and generalized probletence)

This essay has impressed me- painfully and now I want to answer to it- openly, sincerely- a bit philosophically and culturally- it is about the destiny, the karma of Cold Fusion/LENR to which I belong too.

The LENR field is very strange indeed.

Actually, isn't it the strangest thing that has ever happened in Science? It has started as a potential huge success than failed and became the Fiasco of the Century- but survived as kind of samizdat science in semi-darkness- and 5 years ago it has started to resurrect. Strangest...I instinctively turned to the Latin forms of superlatives - "stranissimo" and the plural brought to my memory on of the most beautiful and strange Italian songs I know about "stranissimi e profondi" fairy eyes:

Benjamino Gigli Occhi di Fatahttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkToLK-NH74 One of my favorites, I want to share it with my readers.And, yes- LENR is indeed strange but it is also wonderfully beautiful, rich, interesting, surprising and I have the intuition of its strange but world-improving future- Infinite optimism for infinite energy.However it would be so fine if LENR could eventually understand the deep causes of its unusual strange past. For the time given this is quasi impossible due to some foundational myths and memes- with values of over 13 on the Mohs scale. Edmund writes:"A new and unique source of clean, cheap, and universal energy is discovered using PdD." Let's try together to forget what we think we know for sure and re-think it realistically?Source, yes, but why "unique"? Isn't this too much forward looking? Who is able to predict that no other source more or less similar will be discovered? And was it- inside its cradle- a SOURCE, a genuine source of energy? Or was it more the foreshadow of a dream of an real energy source? Few harbinger sparks of a Fire that needs a proper stove or fireplace to show its full power? WHAT EXACTLY WAS DISCOVERED BY FLEISCHMANN AND PONS?Then: "This claim is immediately rejected in spite of the desperate need for such energy." Does this mean the idea was assassinated in its cradle and the researchers , including the founders, had no chances to prove they are right, lacking funds, palladium whatever ? No, the effect was real- however weak, sporadic, evanescent- intensification and scale-up were NOT possible. Why we are accepting that as long as it is confined to the F&P Cell excess heat is inherently limited due to too low temperatures and blocked working surfaces (active sites)

The story of the first discovery has continued up to today:"Twenty-seven years of study in laboratories located in at least 12 countries support the original claims, yet rejection continues."What was actually confirmed? The original results, not the original claims or promises of an energy source. It is difficult to speak about improvements in reproducibility, scale-up is not a subject , excess power level remains <10 W. Total desolation for a technologist. But it is worseLENR-ist take seriously- as discusssion partner an arch-enemy as Kirk Shanahan who tries to show that what we consider excess heat due to some (strange or stranger nuclear reactions) can be explained by secondary, normal chemical and physical phenomena:see this long thread:https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2746-Split-Reconsidering-F-P-with-CCS/?postID=13868#post1386839 pages, mamma mia! It is about the basics, including the sacrest PdD calorimetry data!!! I did not imagine such horrible thing is still possible in 2016.Ed's story, second part.Then another discovery is made claiming to make energy using NiH. This claim is better accepted than the claim based on PdD because the generated power is greater even though the information provided by the discoverer is poor and not consistent with what is observed .Actually NiH dry (working at higher temperatures) was also discovered in1989 by Francesco Piantelli - a classic scientist and had a slow development- mainly in isolation being ignored "in house" too- actually oppressed- for some strange reasons (in Palladium veritas!) and because Piantelli does not accepted the dominant - in Italy- Preparata Theory of CF. Anyway he has obtained some amazing results- cells functioning for months without feeding with hydrogen. Due to IP reasons we cannot know when these results will go toward industrialization. Then came Rossi, an outsider...Although the process is new and behaves like PdD, the power is considered to result from an entirely different mechanism. In other words, two different "impossible" process are now claimed to produce energy.Why is the process (NiH) behaving like PdD? It is different as range of parameters, works with hydrogen but not with deuterium, cannot lead toHelium as direct reaction product. And we do not speak about one NIH process- Piantelli and Rossi have different processes and do not forget Defkalion- this was also different. (we will not include here Brillouin for ths analysis.) All these have much more possibilities and means to make the impossible possible, temperatures up to the melting point of Ni, active forms of Hydrogen, generation of active sites- a larger world than in a cool electrolysis cell. Actionable parameters see as an example the recent MFMP recipe- still open to improvements.Just now the situation is becoming very simple. Andrea Rossi claims he had tested an 1MW plant for one year and the Report of an authorized experts will answer clearly: the plant has produced massive (GWatthours) of excess energy - or not. End of a story and possibly start of a Story of a new energy Era.Ed's ending phraseNot only are all the claims rejected by conventional science, but agreement about the mechanism cannot be achieved evenwithin the field itself. If LENR goes commercial that is is converted to LENR+ than conventional science will help it to find explanations that will later be called conventional. There are probably more variants of the processes at work and agreements must refer to solving the problems not about imposing one mechanism as standard and dominant.PdD is more static than NiH working at high temperatures.Is it so humiliating to accept that PdD is not made for technology and D vs H is leading to deep changes?DAILY NEWS1) Rossi Hopes for Public Presentation of E-Cat X Plant this Year

Koen Vandewalle:I am not just an inventor; I am also the guy which will industrialize the E-Cats. As a matter of fact I have right now finisged my meeting with ABB that will realize the robotized production line. And pretty advanced with it.As I said, the best defense of our intellectual property will be the speed and the economy scale with which we will produce the E-Cats.F9.Warm Regards,A.R.Andrea RossiFebruary 25, 2016 at 7:40 PM

Frank Acland:No, if the results of the test made on the 1 MW plant and the R&D on course on the E-Cat X will be positive, we will make a massive aggression of the market, to bar the action of our competitors, that are “massively” waiting for our product to copy it. Our defense will be an offense based on the legal protection of the IP against the competitors and on the competitivity that will make very difficult for them to enter in the business. We are years ahead of them, in any sense, as far as I know from the intelligence we have collected. It will be extremely difficult to compete against us for our competitors, as big as their names might be. Much cheaper to find an agreement with us.This is the strategy, in a nutshell.Warm Regards,A.R.

Valerio PensabeneFebruary 25, 2016 at 6:35 PM

Caro Dr Rossi:Do all these replications of the Rossi Effect infringe your US Patent?ValerioAndrea RossiFebruary 25, 2016 at 7:33 PM

Valerio Pensabene:Laboratory replication for scientific purposes are not patent infringements and I am delighted to read about them. Only if it is put in commerce an apparatus, that copies one or more of the claims of our patents, our attorneys will immediately file a suit.Warm Regards,A.R.